﻿"That the government's power under the Taft-Hartley Act to stop a strike by injunction so clearly strengthens the hand of the employer--even though it is used only when a strike threatens the national health, welfare, or safety--is a grave blemish and explains much of the union resistance to the Act."﻿-Peter DruckerAuthor and Management Consultor

Conclusion

The passage of the Taft-Hartley Act created tensions amongst the labor unions, specifically between the labor leaders and the government. The act transferred responsibility of the workers from the labor unions to the employers, generating more unease between the two. The ability of the Taft-Hartley Act to halt a strike prematurely, among other unjust powers, shifted the balance between labor unions and employers created by the Wagner Act. The Taft-Hartley Act discriminates against the labor unions and gives an unfair advantage to the side of the employer and it is still in effect today. Union membership in the United States has declined severely since the passing of this act, especially in the private sector and in the South. Many have called for its repeal because it infringes on workers' rights--a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act would go a long way to restore American democracy and help to achieve a living wage for lower employed workers.

FCEA Union President Michael Itkoff on the effects of the Taft-Hartley Act on the private sector

﻿“Public sector unions aren’t covered by it [Taft-Hartley Act] so there has been a growth of public sector unionization, all this time. Private sector unions have all been affected negatively by it. There is no private sector union that has benefitted from Taft-Hartley. Zero.”﻿-Author, lawyer, and lobbyist Barry Broad on the adverse effects of the Taft-Hartley Act